Comments (6)

I agree with Mr Byford - if you have nothing to hide you don't have to worry. I'm amused by the conspiracy-theorists who won't even register their Oyster cards because "the government can track them". Every time you enter a shop, a bus station, a club, the street(!) you will be on camera - it's for our safety, not to criminalise us.

I agree with Mr Byford - if you have nothing to hide you don't have to worry. I'm amused by the conspiracy-theorists who won't even register their Oyster cards because "the government can track them". Every time you enter a shop, a bus station, a club, the street(!) you will be on camera - it's for our safety, not to criminalise us.Angela M

This is a horrible proposal, and people like Angela enable our civil liberties to be thrown out by those interested in political power all in the name of perceived security.

Angela, I take it, as you have nothing to hide, you have no curtains in your bedroom? Nothing to hide nothing to fear, etc.. And because you are such an upstanding citizen, that you have your bank statements delivered on postcards rather than in envelopes? If you are not laundering money, then you have nothing to hide, remember.

OK, those examples are hyperbolic, but tolerance to privacy invasion varies from person to person. Some people are happy to walk around totally naked (eg naturists), though the vast majority of us consider our privates to be exactly that. Would you be happy for us to all have to walk around naked for our safety? No concealed weapons, after all.

Privacy is very important, and one of the biggest safeguards we have against an over bearing state (or any powerful group, like religions, corporations, unions, etc.).

There is no effective difference between cameras/computers being able to identify us by our faces using CCTV and giving law enforcement the powers to demand to see state-issued papers on demand when in public.

Hundreds of thousands of people laid down their lives in WWII to fight against the ideas of over bearing government and fascism. The removal of civil liberties in Germany enabled the Nazis to wage wars of aggression and implement their industrialised mass-murder.

So please bear in mind, when you are ignorantly willing to give up your civil liberties, you are willing to give up everyone else's too.

This is a horrible proposal, and people like Angela enable our civil liberties to be thrown out by those interested in political power all in the name of perceived security.
Angela, I take it, as you have nothing to hide, you have no curtains in your bedroom? Nothing to hide nothing to fear, etc.. And because you are such an upstanding citizen, that you have your bank statements delivered on postcards rather than in envelopes? If you are not laundering money, then you have nothing to hide, remember.
OK, those examples are hyperbolic, but tolerance to privacy invasion varies from person to person. Some people are happy to walk around totally naked (eg naturists), though the vast majority of us consider our privates to be exactly that. Would you be happy for us to all have to walk around naked for our safety? No concealed weapons, after all.
Privacy is very important, and one of the biggest safeguards we have against an over bearing state (or any powerful group, like religions, corporations, unions, etc.).
There is no effective difference between cameras/computers being able to identify us by our faces using CCTV and giving law enforcement the powers to demand to see state-issued papers on demand when in public.
Hundreds of thousands of people laid down their lives in WWII to fight against the ideas of over bearing government and fascism. The removal of civil liberties in Germany enabled the Nazis to wage wars of aggression and implement their industrialised mass-murder.
So please bear in mind, when you are ignorantly willing to give up your civil liberties, you are willing to give up everyone else's too.duhvdhvrui

I'm not a politician or a campaigner, so my own opinions are unlikely to affect the number of public security cameras.

And no - I don't always close the curtains, and I wouldn't care if the postman knew how much I have in my account because the answer is 'not much'! What little I do have is precious to me, and if I was to get mugged in the street I would feel safer in the knowledge that the mugger has been caught on 20 cameras and is therefore more likely to be caught and brought to justice, and there is a much greater chance of my possessions being returned. I think we're a long way from '1984'.

I'm not a politician or a campaigner, so my own opinions are unlikely to affect the number of public security cameras.
And no - I don't always close the curtains, and I wouldn't care if the postman knew how much I have in my account because the answer is 'not much'! What little I do have is precious to me, and if I was to get mugged in the street I would feel safer in the knowledge that the mugger has been caught on 20 cameras and is therefore more likely to be caught and brought to justice, and there is a much greater chance of my possessions being returned. I think we're a long way from '1984'.Angela M

Nice to see you utterly ignore that I pointed out that the machines will be able to unique recognise all individuals as they pass in front of any cameras connected up. Cross reference the faces with the NIR, passport, police, or driving licence, photograph databases and soon identifying the movements of the majority of individuals will be possible.

.

To be honest, why do you think such exacting standards were brought in on things like passport photographs? Under the guise of terrorism, exactly the same justification Gadaffi is using in Libya. Anyway, the photo standards are to aid with the recognition of details of our faces by computers. The ratio of distances between points on our faces are nearing unique, and so like fingerprints we can be uniquely identified.

.

Technology like this is much more invasive than giving the police the equivalent powers of "papieren bitte". At least in East Germany you could tell if you were being followed!

.

The thing is, street muggings are usually committed by people who are desperate. They will not be concerned about being seen by cameras, and so you would still end up getting mugged and possibly getting harmed even if this system is in place.

.

If you are concerned about street crime, reducing the reasons why people do it would be more effective, and would protect all our civil liberties. Liberties like protest, could you imagine what Gadaffi would use a facial recognition system like this for? And our wonderful politicians will help sell systems like it. I digress, but legalising drugs would solve so much street crime. Addicts could be provided with clean drugs, as regularly as a doctor advises to help them quit, and it would take all the money out of the hands of the black market. Kids and young people need things to keep them occupied, and the wealth divisions in society need reducing.

.

But none of those things are favoured by the many groups that run the country, so we see yet more Orwellian projects, and lap-dogs to applaud them.

Nice to see you utterly ignore that I pointed out that the machines will be able to unique recognise all individuals as they pass in front of any cameras connected up. Cross reference the faces with the NIR, passport, police, or driving licence, photograph databases and soon identifying the movements of the majority of individuals will be possible.
.
To be honest, why do you think such exacting standards were brought in on things like passport photographs? Under the guise of terrorism, exactly the same justification Gadaffi is using in Libya. Anyway, the photo standards are to aid with the recognition of details of our faces by computers. The ratio of distances between points on our faces are nearing unique, and so like fingerprints we can be uniquely identified.
.
Technology like this is much more invasive than giving the police the equivalent powers of "papieren bitte". At least in East Germany you could tell if you were being followed!
.
The thing is, street muggings are usually committed by people who are desperate. They will not be concerned about being seen by cameras, and so you would still end up getting mugged and possibly getting harmed even if this system is in place.
.
If you are concerned about street crime, reducing the reasons why people do it would be more effective, and would protect all our civil liberties. Liberties like protest, could you imagine what Gadaffi would use a facial recognition system like this for? And our wonderful politicians will help sell systems like it. I digress, but legalising drugs would solve so much street crime. Addicts could be provided with clean drugs, as regularly as a doctor advises to help them quit, and it would take all the money out of the hands of the black market. Kids and young people need things to keep them occupied, and the wealth divisions in society need reducing.
.
But none of those things are favoured by the many groups that run the country, so we see yet more Orwellian projects, and lap-dogs to applaud them.duhvdhvrui

Drugs are still harmful to mental health in many cases, so legalising them is not a good option.

I didn't "utterly ignore" anything. If I get mugged, at least the assailant could be identified by facial recognition and taken off the streets - thus saving other potential victims from a similar experience.

I'm going to go and put on my tin foil hat...

Drugs are still harmful to mental health in many cases, so legalising them is not a good option.
I didn't "utterly ignore" anything. If I get mugged, at least the assailant could be identified by facial recognition and taken off the streets - thus saving other potential victims from a similar experience.
I'm going to go and put on my tin foil hat...Angela M